Subject: Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:54:34 -0700

> They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to carry 
> ethernet over another protocol and keep current ethernet correctness.

Sure, but what about IP network correctness (e.g., security or congestion 
control)?

> Certainly IETF-ers would be useful participants, but keep in mind that 
> transport protocol discussions usually focus at the transport layer (in 
> this case, ethernet) with experts thereof, not at the IP layer.

I'm confused...  Transport Layer (as in Layer 4) or "transport layer"[?] (as 
in Layer 2)?  Regardless, being an Internet "user", I'd prefer they be
defined in the IETF.

> That may be the case, i.e., case for a joint group, but this is clearly 
> outside sole-IETF scope per se.

You've obviously observed IEEE member participation in these IETF WGs, 
hence your comments regarding semantics discussions...  And I don't recall
anyone saying discard input from individual members or officially from the 
"original host organization", quite the contrary, actually.

I think the IESG (& IAB) saw value in performing this work in the IETF largely 
because transporting these protocols (e.g., Layer 2 protocols) over IP networks
was going to happen, regardless, and you could have it only one of two ways:

 o Ethernet (e.g.) PRECISELY specified over IP
 
or
 
 o Ethernet specified over IP in an IP-friendly manner (I'm sure
   the "original host organization" would make attempts, but the
   expertise for doing things in an IP-friendly manner clearly 
   resides within the IETF).

You're not going to get both.  IMO, the best you can hope (as an 
IETF-type) is the latter, with as much interaction and input from 
the "original host organization" and service providers as possible.  

And whether you like the general idea of carrying these protocols over 
IP or not, well, that's your prerogative, but service providers are 
going to _continue to deploy them -- over the same _IP networks they're 
carrying their Internet data on.
 
As an aside, PWE3 is in the Transport Area, not the Sub-IP Area, which
is what this thread was initially intended to address.

-danny

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 09:41:06 -0800

> Sure, but what about IP network correctness (e.g., security or congestion 
Security isn't an IP issue; it's an IPsec issue. If they use IPsec, then 
they need to show how current solutions won't work. Ditto for ICMP. etc.

IP doesn't have congestion control. Neither does Ethernet. Ethernet over 
IP is unlikely to have meaningful congestion control as a result.

> in Layer 2)?  Regardless, being an Internet "user", I'd prefer they be

Running layer 2 over layer 3 is liable to generate this sort of 
confusion. As far as IP is concerned, ethernet over IP means ethernet is 
a 'transport' protocol (layer 4).

Not everything spec'd in IP is defined in the IEFT. Certainly they need 
a protocol number. An assumption is that the IP side cannot reasonably 
change to support this new use (or at least that it hasn't been shown it 
won't work), there's nothing left for the IETF to care about, IMO.

>    resides within the IETF).

Perhaps you can tell us what "IP friendly" means.

Then perhaps there would be a reason for this discussion in the IETF. 
Absent that, it's an ethernet discussion - ethernet over Frame Relay, 
ethernet over copper, ethernet over ATM and now ethernet over IP.

Those discussions happened elsewhere, excepting the last. There is clear 
reason to have that set of discussions in the same place, with the same 
gathered expertise. IETF members might be interested, and participate, 
but there's no justification yet shown for IETF hosting this group.

Joe